Re: Information Request: Treated water

[coho@whidbey.net]

Posting from Bill Skubi <coho@whidbey.net>
Subject: Re: Information Request: Treated water

Yes, I agree with you. I have heard similar assessments, i.e. that the 
cost of treating emissions from a pump and treat facility are relatively low.
One arguement given me by the contractor is that the highest 
concentration of VOCs removed will be vinyl chlorides which he says gum 
up carbon filters faster than most other pollutants, and would therefore 
require very costly primary treatment. Because we have no technical 
assistance it is difficult to evaluate this statement.
Another reason given for not treating emissions is that they are released 
near the runway end of a military jet airfield, less than ten miles away 
from two highly air polluting oil refineries. Nancy Harney of the EPA and 
others have argued to me that the daily emission might be less than one 
jet take off.
Of course the counter argument is that any toxic emission is potentially 
more, not less, harmful when it contributes to an already polluted 
environment.
Bill

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Peter Strauss wrote:

> Thanks for the information. The practice you describe seems to be a common one.
> It would be preferable to have the Navy treat the emissions, or you are merely transferring the pollution from one medium to anothe 
> transferring pollution from one medium to anoter. Treatment is relatively
> inexpensive, in relationship to pump-and -treat.
>